Re: still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.

To: <ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.
From: "Brent McClure" <mcclure%swcp.com@localhost>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:04:36 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-connect-16.txt
> 
> All normative

I wonder if [POSIX] could really be categorized as informative.
While POSIX was the source of the secsh list of signals, the fact
that they came from there doesn't seem to require one to go
read POSIX to implement. Here is the relevant text in SSH-CONN:

  ...
  The signal name is one of the following (these are from [POSIX])

     ABRT
     ALRM
     FPE
     HUP
     ...

 
I read SSH-TRANS and SSH-USERAUTH and the only non-normative ref
I found was [Orm96] that you already identified.

thanks, Brent
bdm%vandyke.com@localhost

References:
- still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.
  - From: Bill Sommerfeld

Prev by Date: Re: still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.
Next by Date: Re: still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.
Previous by Thread: Re: still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.
Next by Thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-dns-02.txt
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index